Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: danamco

Wikipedia:

The 1790 Congress, many of whose members had been members of the Constitutional Convention, provided in the Naturalization Act of 1790 that “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.”

Since the Constitution gives the Congress the right to control naturalization, this would seem to be relevant, unless over-ruled by some later statute.

Of course, the wording of this law doesn’t specifically address the issue of one parent not being a a citizen.


27 posted on 11/26/2008 2:14:15 PM PST by Sherman Logan (Everyone has a right to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: Sherman Logan
"Of course, the wording of this law doesn’t specifically address the issue of one parent not being a a citizen."

The use of the plural: Citizens, limits the span.

28 posted on 11/26/2008 2:18:03 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Obama - not just an empty suit - - A Suit Bomb invading the White House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: Sherman Logan
The 1790 Congress, many of whose members had been members of the Constitutional Convention, provided in the Naturalization Act of 1790 that “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.

Yes, if BOTH parents are U.S. citizen!

Since the Constitution gives the Congress the right to control naturalization, this would seem to be relevant, unless over-ruled by some later statute.

Naturalization and natural born are two different things!!

Of course, the wording of this law doesn’t specifically address the issue of one parent not being a a citizen.

The Framer's grandfather clause does!!!

The chosen wording of the framers makes clear that they had drawn a distinction between themselves-- persons born subject to British jurisdiction-- and "natural born citizens" who would NOT be born subject to British jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction other than the United States. The framers grandfathered themselves into the Constitution as being eligible to be President, but the grandfather clause ONLY applies to any person who was a "Citizen . . . at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." Obama (obviously) was not a Citizen at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, so he is not subject to the grandfather clause.

Here's where the Donofrio argument becomes quite interesting. The framers recognized that EVEN THEY were not "natural born citizens." That's why they included a grandfather clause to allow any of them to become President. The framers did not want citizens with divided loyalty to become President in the future-- particularly citizens with loyalty to the hated British Empire. Donofrio argues that the word "born" constitutes proof positive that the framers intended that status as a "citizen" must be present at birth, since if this was not the intent there would have been no need for the grandfather clause. Dual citizenship at time of birth (British/US) was allowed for the framers themselves under the grandfather clause, but for no one else. Hence, argues Donofrio, Obama is not a natural born citizen, and even if he produces an original birth certificate proving he was born in Hawaii it will not change the fact that he was a British citizen at birth.

56 posted on 11/26/2008 8:31:25 PM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson